A China Blog Dedicated to Providing Alternate Views to Current Issues

On the Topic of Democracy (Part 2) — A Model for the 21st Century

A former work colleague once asked me what I thought about democracy. I replied :

“Great! We can vote our CEO out if he doesn’t give us a pay rise”.

Realizing I was in need of an injection of creative fantasy, he decided to go along with the flow, and replied :

“But if we were all to do this, the company would collapse”.

I said “Fine. By that time, we would have enjoyed our stay and made some big bucks. So we will just move on to the next company, and repeat this all over again”.

I was of course only joking. I can’t imagine any company taking on that path any time soon. But if there was such a company, I am sure everyone would be piling up to apply to join that company. And we would be telling everyone else how great such a democratic system is.

We would of course be correct. Such a company would be an ideal place to be in. But is that in the best interest of the company?

Well, it depends. There are advantages and disadvantages. One obvious advantage is its ability to attract the best and the brightest talents (assuming everything else being equal). The most obvious disadvantage is that a true democracy by nature can never be as efficient as an authoritarian command organisation.

We can list more advantages and disadvantages. But before we get too carried away, it should be worthwhile to first consider whether this would even work. And if it would, what are the preconditions for having such a system.

—————————————————

Preconditions of a Democratic System :

The strength of democracy lies in the ability of the system to allow the majority to influence the outcomes of decisions that affect everyone.

Such systems even when correctly implemented can only be as good as the quality of the collective decisions of the majority polpulation within that system. In order for the strength of such systems to translate into actual strength in reality, the majority population must be of a high quality standard.

A brief analysis should reveal at least 3 necessary preconditions :

1) First, as the above conversation shows, the voters must have loyalty to the company.

2) Second, the great majority of the voters, no matter how minimal their roles and responsibilities are in the company, must be sufficiently educated in order to be able to understand why certain actions and policies need to be taken by the CEO.

3) Last but not least, the voters need to be relatively selfless. That is, they need to put the common good above their own interests. That would often mean putting the interests of the company above their own.

These are merely the most fundamental preconditions, without which such a system would not work. Or at least it won’t work the way it was meant to. However, in reality, in order for it to achieve its true potentials, the list would need to be a lot longer. It would, for example, be extremely destabilizing for such systems if the voters cannot differentiate what is reasonable expectation, and what is not. This is especially true when we have a crisis, such as the financial crisis we have today. Under such scenario, democracy could easily become a child’s game of musical chairs, where the CEO is simply there to warm the seat until the next election.

————————————————-

National Democracy :

As the idea of democracy is not destined to reach the desks of our corporate CEOs any time soon, it should be wise to redirect our focus on the more practicable topic of national democracy. So how does the above translate to a national democracy?

The obvious question is whether a corporate democracy is the same as a national democracy? The answer is no, it’s not. But it is similar enough for us to adopt the same preconditions discussed above to apply to a national democracy.

Under both cases, the quality of the majority voters is the key to whether a democracy would succeed or not. If the average Joe Blow on the street is not the kind of person you would entrust important tasks to, then the chance is the average Joe Blow on the street is also not the kind of person you should entrust the fate of your nation to.

Given that is the case, it should be, at least in theory, much easier to establish a corporate democracy than a national democracy. A corporation can always control the quality of the people joining itself. However for a country, no matter how strict our immigration laws are, there is no way of controlling the quality of the existing population and those young ones coming in through the maternity ward.

This problem of lack of control of the selection process for the existing population and the newborn arrivals would not be a big issue for a wealthy country. Wealthy nations invaribly have relatively educated populations, and the resources to educate newcomers. Poor nations do not. THIS, is where the problems lie.

————————————————-

To Democratize or Not to Democratize :

In this world, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. And seldom do we find silver bullets that fix age old problems without itself causing problems.

Regardless of the debate on whether democracy is the best political system, democracy itself does not work for all countries. In my view, nations without the ability to satisfy those 3 minimum preconditions would not reap benefits from such systems. Unfortunately, that disqualifies all 3rd world countries and most developing countries in the world.

Indeed, a group that cares only about where to find the next meal is hardly the best group to tell us who and how to run the country. A group without the necessary education is unlikely to make correct decisions on whose policies would bring their population out of poverty and misery.

The most important thing for a developing country is to lift its citizens out of poverty and misery. This invariably forces the goverment to make tough decisions. If a person is sick, he/she needs to take the appropriate medications. If a country is sick, it needs to adopt the necessary unpopular corrective policies. Such painful policies would never gain the support of those who do not have the capacity to understand the complex reasoning behind the policies.

While there is no reason to think that deveoping countries can never adopt a democractic system of government, it does mean that it is in their own interest to delay that adoption until such time that it has the necessary requirements to make it viable.

————————————————-

Does Democracy Really Work? :

Now that we have established the minimum preconditions for a workable democracy. The next question is: Does democracy actually work?

To answer that, we would first need to get a common understanding of what “work” means.

Most in America seem to believe that George W. Bush was not the best candidate for the top job of supreme commander. Indeed, most in the world seem to agree. If general elections, being the most integral part of democracy, were meant to pick the best person for the job, then we can safely conclude that democracy does NOT work.

In order for us to claim that democracy works, we would first need to come to the consensus that general elections are NOT meant to place the right persons into office.

Indeed, that IS the main difference between a democracy and a meritocracy. The most fundamental element of democracy is the democractic elections. Democractic elections are essentially popularity contests. THIS, has to be a serious cause of concern for developing countries.

There are at least 2 serious flaws with such a system for developing countries.

First, popularity can be bought, and IS usually bought. This happens in both developing and developed countries alike. This can be done directly, through the purchase of air time and paid advertisements. Or it can be done indirectly, through the promise of personal benefits such as tax cuts, etc, which clearly has no relevance to the candidate’s suitability for the job, and often may not even be in the best interest of the country.

Secondly, such contests of popularity often plays on the emotions of the masses. This may not be a serious problem for first world countries except perhaps when in a crisis. However, it can be a very dangerous set up for developing countries. This is especially the case if the country has a belligerent uneducated majority population.

Developing countries, more than any other countries, need strong governments and strong leaders that know what they are doing, and can make tough decisions and then enact them. Such popularity contests that depend completely on the feel good factor of an uneducated population is almost a guarantee for that country to keep its “developing” label.

The supporting factor behind democracy is its inherent fairness to the majority. But for a developing country, this “fairness” is an irrational one. It is fair only because it unnecessarily keeps every person as poor and miserable as every other person in a country that may stay as “developing” for an unreasonable amount of time.

Democracy can work for wealthy first world countries. Whether it IS actually working for these countries depends a lot on your perspective. But there is no doubt that one can afford such luxury in these countries. However there can be little doubt that democracy does NOT work for developing countries.

————————————————-

The Chinese Model :

If democracy requires preconditions that can not be met by poor developing countries, then it may be worthwhile to explore viable alternatives. The following is a brief introduction of an interesting hybrid system that seems to be taking shape in China.

(a)From the Bottom :

China has long stated that it would never adopt a Western style democracy on a national level. However it has at the same time been experimenting with the idea of democracy on local levels continuously since the 1980s.

The first experimental elections were held in the early 1980s in remote villages. Today, more than 600,000 villages across all of China conduct open, competitive elections every 3 years. These are very much like the city council elections in Western countries, and are monitored by American NGOs based in Atlanta, USA that operate around the world. These open and transparent competitive elections cover more than 1 billion of its citizens, accounting for approximately 75% of the entire population.

This is almost certainly only the first step in an evolutionary process. Provided there are no major social upheavals (which often have the effect of turning the clock backwards in China), these democratic elections should eventually be expanded to include at least one, or maybe more, higher level administrative divisions.

(b)From the Top :

While the top Chinese leaders today are not elected through universal suffrage, they are not dictators either in the original sense of the word.

No leaders in China are born into the position, and no leaders can overstay their set terms. The national leaders don’t happen to fall on the leader’s seat. There is a selection process not very different from the selection process of party leaders in most democratic systems. In China’s case, the leades are appointed for a set term by an experienced panel that includes current leaders and national advisors.

This is essentially a meritocratic system that is in use today in all major corporations worldwide. The benefit of such a system is its inherent ability to place the right person in the right job.

The chosen candidate is then put in an “apprentice” position within the cabinet for a maximum of 5 years. This safeguard procedure would ensure that the right person is chosen for the job. This also enables the new leaders to be proficient in handling the immense responsibilities by the time he/she gets into office.

(c)Combining (a) and (b) — The Final Model :

The resulting model would then be a hybrid system where the local affairs and demands of the population would be handled by local authorities that are elected by the people themselves through democratic means, while the macro management and foreign affairs would be handled by capable people trained for the job and are selected based on their abilities by an experienced panel.

This system is not only more effective and efficient than a democratic system, but should also be inherently fairer than both democratic systems and monarchy based systems. Unlike a monarchy based system, there are no hereditary leaders. And unlike a democratic system, there are no campaign cost burdens and considerations which tend to limit the average person’s ability to apply for the top job. This new system would ensure that ALL members of the society have equal access to power.

At the end of this evolutionary process, the eventual hybrid system should have most of the humanistic benefits of a democratic system combined with the stability inherent in a single party system, while at the same time preserving the effectiveness and efficiency of a meritocratic system.

————————————————-

Conclusions :

Although there is no guarantee of success at the end of this political evolutionary process taking place in China, the case is compelling for a new system that suits both developing countries and developed countries alike. At least on the surface, it does seem to be a well balanced compromise that is likely to be superior to the current systems. It remains to be seen whether it is or not. But personally, I think it looks very promising.

At this point, I like to share with you a quote I found in one of Cam Hui’s articles on the SeekingAlpha blogsite ( which was in turn taken from Fabius Maximus’s blogsite ) :

Like this:

59 Responses

Interesting article. I salute your effort in pointing out the major flaw of a democratic system, which it needs people to be educated and selfless for it to work.

I have some points that I believed that you have missed in the article:

When you say fairness is irrational. I agree with the idea, but if the system is not fair, how can you control the citizens? If the transition period between poor and rich is a long, long time, how can you cap the outrage? Any strategies for China, besides telling people to shut up?

Also, you hybird model is a bit disjointed, since the local and the macro level does not interact with each other. If the local and macro conflicts, do you have any strategies to resolve that? Also, since experts can make mistakes, who can rescue the experts from macro policy mistakes that affects the entire nation?

workes do not vote ceo, that is task for company owners (even that should be worker too, even unions should have voice too)
also i do not agree chinese ‘scientific’ system for selection is more perfect – have a look at many offcials who failed

Having spent the last 5 years back and forth from America to Chengdu, and having learned much about the Chinese system, the BIGGEST point that is missed by almost all American’s (as regards the Chinese system) is the idea of it being a meritocracy, based on a communist political (but capitalist economic) system.

Unfortunately, too many Westerners have become close-minded to the idea that anything that has any roots in communism can actually have validity. I freely admit I carried the same ignorance into China when I first visited those 5 years ago, but I also (luckily) carried with me an open-mind as well.

This prejudice and ignorance of modern China in the West is unfortunate. The current Chinese system, while far from perfect, is actually functioning quite well, IF fairly evaluated. Further, the system seems quite focused on creating constant improvements (look how far it has come in just the past 30 years)!

The part about “corporate democracy” was only used as a prologue to introduce the idea of democracy. I was of course not saying workers vote in CEOs today.

The reason I did this was because most people are very emotionally attached to the idea of democracy. Saying anything negative about democracy could stop many people reading further. Talking about democracy for companies would be less confronting for many.

(2) RE : “… do not agree chinese ’scientific’ system for selection is more perfect …”

No systems are perfect. But that is the same system that is in use in all major corporations worldwide today. We all know that many corporations have incompetent CEOs. And some even engage in fraud and illegal activites. But overall, it is still the most objective and effective way to choose the right person.

2) anyway if you think 5 years term is something will guarantee right person than i must say argument of (often) repeating elections was one of the “proofs” for necessary bad solutions in democracy i listened 25-30 years ago, that’s the funny
3) no question, just note to your 1)

It’s good that you agree that the “fairness” of democracy in a developing country is irrational. But unfortunately as you said, the alternative IS unfair. And that poses challenges in controllong the citizens.

I guess we have to accept my earlier comment that there is no “silver bullets … without itself causing problems”. We can’t have it both ways. If we are sick, we have to take the medicine. The choice here is do you want fairness for yourself and condemn yourself and your next 2 generations to slavery, or do you forgo fairness for yourself but give yourself and your sons and daughters the chance to have a good life.

(2) RE : “If the transition period … is a long, long time, how can you cap the outrage?”

In a poor developing country, people have a lot to be outraged about. Unless we are in a religious fundamentalist country, there is literally NO way of eliminating all outrage. Just take a look at India or any other poor but democratic countries in Africa, and you willl understand that unless you can eliminate poverty and remove the “developing” label, outrage is here to stay.

So the answer to your question is: No, you can’t. But the best chance you have is to eliminate poverty and remove the “developing” label as fast as you can.

(3) RE : “If the local and macro conflicts, do you have any strategies to resolve that?”

I was simply presenting to my readers the evolving political landscape that is taking shape in China. I am sure the authorities have a lot of people like myself and better than myself already thinking 2 or 3 steps ahead. This is the reason I believe this final model should turn out to be a success in the not too distant future.

If I was in the leadership, I would set a clear platform within which all local authorities must conduct their business. This would include all the limitations, rules, and codes of conduct governing their work, plus the scope of their responsibilties. A separate body would then be set up to oversee their work. This body would be independent enough to carry out its work in a fair manner.

If this is implemented corretly, I believe there is no chance for conflict. but I should stress that this is not an advice to the Chinese leadership. I have full confidence they know what they are doing.

(4) RE : “… experts can make mistakes, who can rescue …”

In a corporation, CEOs can make mistakes. If they get it wrong, they bring down the company. GM is the latest example. Unfortunately, this also happens with countries. Iceland is the latest example.

In China, the leaders are NOT dictators. They have set terms, and they are being watched by the nation, and monitored by the panel that put them in their jobs in the first place. Fortunately, they are not democratically selected by uneducated peasants. I have full confidence in them. But there are of course no guarantees in this world.

( I’ve put a double quote (“) around your link so Youtube doesn’t display here. But readers can follow your link to the Youtube site to watch the video instead )

The Chinese model I was talking about is still in the process of evolving. The video you have relates to the previous president: Jiang Zemin. He was instated during the late 1980s, and therefore not part of this new model I was describing. He wasn’t selected by a panel, and he didn’t have to go through an “apprenticeship” period.

I will keep your words in mind. But unfortunately I would need to stop writing for some time for personal reasons.

I once had a very reasonable profile both professionally and as a speaker on stage. Unfortunately my life went through very tough times in the last few years. Today I no longer speak on stage. I was meant to fix up my own life, but have been doing everything except that. I now promise myself I will rise from the ashes within the next 2.5 years. So I should now refocus my energy.

( But I will still be blogging around. I can be contacted on this temporary email address : chan_01@inbox.com However I only check this mailbox once every 2 or 3 weeks.)

I read a comment you made at the UK Telegraph blog and followed your link over here and found your articles interesting.

I”m a 33 y/o male American in Chicago. I did live in Hong Kong for a year back in 1998

I really won’t comment on the specifics of the UK, HK, SAR, CCP or the PRC.

I wanted to offer my view about American democracy and hopefully you can find it useful for your purposes.

Most people in America have lost sight of our history and are quite ignorant of the philosophical foundation that formed this country, one of the first Republics of the modern age.

So when I attribute things to America the America I’m talking about is the one from the past… not this thing we have today.

I’m sure many people will disagree with me and say I’m wrong… especially leftists.

Political America starts with religious fanatics from Britian and the Netherlands. Their religion was the Bible. It was not in Chruch organization or institutions. As such, they were quite malcontent in Britian and in Europe. They bothered everyone around them, and everyone around them bothered them.

They were very confident in their understanding of the Bible and they rejected the majority’s formulation regarding Christianity.

They saw themselves as the ancient Israelites in Egypt and they viewed empty America as the Promised Land, where they could escape the slavery of Catholic and Protestant State Christianity and live the life they felt they were obligated to live.

In this Biblical Christianity, in the Gospels, Jesus stresses that persons have secret, individual relationship with God. He teaches that God is not impressed by those actions designed to win the approval of other people. It’s taught that God is not impressed by human institutions, human legalism , instead Jesus command that each person has to maintain the relationship with God himself and primarily during the times that one is not at church.

The people fleeing Europe have witnessed the nightmare of religious wars, State churches, National churches etc…

Now of course they were just as intolerant towards others as they viewed others as being towards them , so as one most do when writing so much about this I must say the obvious that of course these people aren’t perfect by any means.. nor are they free of the dreaded hypocrisy… but who isn’t?

Anyway, they weren’t the only ones to come here .. religious and non religious came here.. all different kinds of people and each settled in their own area away from the others.. so I think the attitude was live and let live.

If some fanatics want to escape the Church of England and yet have their own little theocracy , that’s fine , we’ll live over here and enslave black people on our farms. ANd others were like “You’re both insane,,, I just want to earn a living and make money and not own slaves and not live like a monk. etc..

But they weren’t Leftists,, so they still had faith in God, they were still secure in their devotion to the Bible. They didn’t want to destroy everything because they thought they were better than everyone.

So amongst the movers and shakers of the late 1700s there was a consensus world view… one based on non-institutional Christianity and that was that each man had a special, God-given dignity. And that Liberty and Freedom were the result of a community living in accordance to Biblical morality You didnt’ need a massive State to keep law and order because they were self-regulating. you didn’t need someone to decide who could earn what , because everyone supported themselves.

They didn’t want someone to tell them how to pray, because so many of them thought that their own particular way of thikning was the right one and everyone else would burn in hell.. so no one wanted the risk of the other groups getting power and lording over them.. so they didn’t want to achieve for that power either.

When the colonies broke free of Britain they viewed themselves as 13 sovereign independent countries. They were jealous of their new freedom and didn’t want a new distant master to rule over them. They wanted to be ruled from their localities and they wanted a system that was accountable to them, not the other way around.

When it became clear that the first attempt at a common government, the Articles of Confederation were failing and that something more powerful was needed that would have some power over all of them collectively yet they still wanted to maintain that balance of local control answerable only to those people of the locality , not a distant master. The result was the Constitution of the United States, the Congress of the United States, the office of the President and the Supreme Court.

What they created was not a democracy, but a Federal Republic.

The founders had strong contempt of Democracy.

The best way to summarize Democracy vs Republic is this..

Democracy is the rule of the majority over all.

Republic is the rule of the law over all.

They did all they can to keep the national American government from being a Democracy and instead a Federal Republic , restrained by having its power carefully enumerated and restrained to those enumerations.

All other governmental power and rights were kept by the sovereign states (countries) that collectively created the American government.

The main actors in American gov are the US Senate, the House of Represenataives, the American President and the US Supreme Court.

Only the House was elected by the people. The Seantors were chosen by the State governments, and the Surpreme Court were chosen by the President with the Senate having a veto power over the selection.

The President is elected by whatever means each particualr State determines it will with the number of votes allotted to each State according to the number of Senators and Reps it has.

Theoretically a State could decide to appoint electors based on the score of a baseball game.

So at its start, Americans believed that they were entitled to live however they like because as believers in God they believed that they had no right to dictate how others should live nor should others dictate how they were to live .. of course the major problem with this is that everyone considered everyone to be living in a particular mindset of bible-believing and behaving Christian.

Non believers were tolerated though because they believed that no man can be forced to think a certain way.

The Golden Rule is the basis of the American social contract.

They saw in Europe the disastrous consequence when you mixed government with religion institution.. they corrupt each other. Americans cherished thier religious beliefs and wanted to protect them from abuse.. they didn’t trust those of different views to be in power and use the State against them, so they did not seek to have that power becuase they knew when they were out of power, the other people would be in power,, so no one wanted to risk this live and let live approach to religion.

It was because they were very religious that they didn’t want their government to interfere with their religion. So this notion that America is s secualr nation is incorrect.

America has a secular government for a religious people (or used to, anyway)

I have tons of quotes from the Founders to support my case that they viewed Americans as a religous people and that democracy would be counter to their Liberty and Freedom.

They Founders were very worried about the ability of Liberty to be sustained over the generations. They feared both the loss of religious and the encroachment of Democracy vs Republicanism.

They were fearful that a secularization of the public , and a democraciztion of the government would both lead to the loss of Liberty and the introduction of tyranny as the only way to keep order

And they were right… both of those things are destroying this nation.

Dont let it happen to you .hehe.

I dont believe democracy is universal. It all depends if the people value individual liberty or not.. maybe they’re content to live under a non-oppressive authoritarian collectivist system.

Such system surely dont advance human development though.

It was in the Christian West that machines and electronics were invented as a result of their embracing a quest of knowledge and truth about the world and using that knowledge to better themselves.

That quest for the truth advanced humans from their late 1700s living conditions (whihc werne’t all that different from 1700 BC conditions) to where we are today with buildings that over 2000 ft tall.

And notice how those who LIE and CLAIM to be for science and the truth.. for example the crazy Global Warming hysterics.. want to misuse science and the claim of truth not for advancement but to move people backwards by forcing them to be less energenic.

it’s so perverse it sickens me.

People who believe in the value of each human, peopel who believe there is a God who expects them to live in a proper manner, and people who value the truth and who value self-sufficiency have created a world that no one in the 1700s could imagine.

I use that as a benchmark when comparing cultures. and i declare the American model a winner That is not to say other cultures have no value or legitimacy.

But where would these concepts have taken hold had they not been found by those radical Christians and the others who lived with them?

The Puritans who landed in Massuchetus believed one other thing.. that America was God’s last great project before He would return his attention to his original people of promise, the Jewish people.

They believed that it was the destiny of America to be involved with the return of the Jewish exiles to thier ancient and promised homeland. The Puritans viewed their experience as an example of what God put his chosen people through and that God was establishing a new Zion in America so that in the future, the old Zion could be restored and God would bring a fulllfiment to his plan laid out in America’s primary national document, the Bible.

Thank you very much for the very educational info on American history and political structure.

This has to be by far the longest comment I have ever seen! It’s very interesting, and very informative. I’ve learnt something from it. Thank you Vince.

Although I am not an atheist, I am not exactly very religious myself. While I believe all religions intend to teach people to do good, I do think it can become very dangerous if we start to view it beyond simply as a guide for one’s own actions and behaviour. But you are a very intelligent peson. I am sure you know what you are doing.

——————————–

(1) On the topic of America, I’ve always thought America has many things admirable. After reading your article, I can add yet one more to that list : your ancestor’s successful early political experiment.

(2) On the topic of science and human development, I think the West has contributed a lot to what we have today. But overall, you may like to reconsider your thoughts because it doesn’t seem to fit in with what the Cambridge university in England has been able to prove. Their research is endorsed by the United Nations (UNESCO).

The essence of their research is neatly summarized in this easy to read book :

– “The Genius of China” by Robert Temple.

This book was translated by UNESCO into 43 different languages as a project to change people’s stereotyped views of the world. You may find the contents extremely surprising.

I’m glad you enjoyed my comments. My writing style always seems to make what i’m saying sound so much more intentse than I mean it to be. I am in total agreement with you on the need to moderate one’s religious passion and to always retain one’s rational, thinking mind.

I think human beings have a slot in their brain for a ideological/political/religious worldview and one way or another, a person will fill that slot with something… That is the slot that depending on what is put there enables people to kill others , or to die for others, or to enslave others or to die defending others. Many people think that only religion can abuse this slot ,and so religious uniquely manipulates people. That for a person to think that God is commanding their evil actions is almsot impossible to reprogram the person to think otherwise.
I think it’s just as likely that believing in no God at all frees a person from any and all obligation to live a moral life. I’m not saying you’re suggesting that…. it’s just a thought i had in my mind that i wanted to type out.

It was in Hong Kong in 1998 that I started to explore my country’s past. It was in Hong Kong, on a bus, a British Ex-Pat was reading the paper, and he asked me what I thought of this Osama Bin Laden fellow. At that point all I knew was that he was occasionally interviewd by American media, that he was rich, yet lived in a cave.

I thought he was ridicilious.I thought to myself… MyGod, how desperate are these news people to make this guy into something he isns’t.

So I told the british guy I think it’s all overblown media hype.

And a few weeks later, Al Qaeda simultaneously destroyed the American embassies in Kenya and Tansania.

Boy was I wrong about that guy…. I was upset with myself for being wrong. I like to think I’m an objective person, so when I realize I’ve been wrong about something I want to know how that happened so I can learn from it.

So in this case that meant learning about Bin Laden and what he wanted and that meant learning about Islam. and that also made me learn what it was about us that he deemed us an enemy and who are the other enemies of thsi country and why? eventually led to my re-education about the American revoltuion and the type of society that they were aspiring to build

Here are some quotes I have saved over the years , these quotes are primarily about the dangers of Democracy.

I think over time , forces in this country has tried to turn America into a Democracy, away from a Republic.

I agree with these men below that Democracy leads to Dictatorship:

Thomas Jefferson has said:

Mankind soon learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess, or may assume. The public money and public liberty, intended to have been deposited with three branches of magistracy, but found inadvertently to be in the hands of one only, will soon be discovered to be sources of wealth and dominion to those who hold them; distinguished, too, by this tempting circumstance, that they are the instrument, as well as the object of acquisition. With money we will get men, said Caesar, and with men we will get money. Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.

Ben Franklin
When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic

Jeffferson
Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.

John Adams
no good government but what is republican… the very definition of a republic is ‘an empire of laws, and not of men.’

Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

John C. Calhoun
The government of the absolute majority is but the government of the strongest interests; and when not effectively checked, is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised… [To read the Constitution is to realize that] no free system was ever farther removed from the principle that the absolute majority, without check or limitation, ought to govern.

Charles Carroll
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

James Madison
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.

Daniel Webster
Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.

John Adams
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide

Ben Franklin
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!

Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Alexander Tytler, The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until voters discover they can vote themselves generous benefits from the public treasury. From that moment, the majority always votes for candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

We have not kept what was given to us.

H. L. Mencken in The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

I had more to say but didnt’ want to keep typing on that comment and make it 10 screens long :)

I have a great respect for the Chinese nation and the Chinese people. I have a great sadness that China came under foreign domination in the last century.

I dont know much about the real thinking of people in China, so I can only try to make sense of what is told to me by news people (so I know it’s already misinformation!l… people complain that State-run Media is manipulative… nothing is more manipulative than a media which pretends to be independent, but is not. Like ours) and our politicians (who are stupid)

The sense I get is that the average Chinese person jsut want sto live their life… like nearly most people. There seems to me to be no aggresiveness, no movement to be a threat to anyone.

I regret that the Govts of the USA and the PRC are so paranoid of one another… I wish our leaders could spend a month or so on a retreat somewhere and talk out all of their fears and suspicions and blames and get it out of their system and figure out how to advance together into the future.

I know China doens’t want to attack the USA. and I know we have o desire to attack China.

One country or the other should say…. China won’t attack Tawain and the US will stop the policy of treating China as a ptoential war adversary.

The actions that China makes, like blowing up satellites in space, and building a military posture designed to go to war aginst the US is just prudent national self-interest.

Your country has over one billion people to ensure are administered in a proper manner and that they have the required resources for a decent life… that explains the efforts by China to have influence in countries that supply these raw materials. china would be stupid not to.

Which of course is what our stupid Democrat government is like.. China is preparing for its future, our government is acting like they dont need to do anything , except spend us into obliviion.

I hope you guys really humiliated that supreme idiot Tim Geither, the Treasurer (rapist) of the United States.

‘I’m glad thsoe students laughed at him when he siad China’s holding of US Dollars is safe.

The dumb people over here would be like “Oh thank Goodness. it’s safe! Thank you Mr Geither, thank you Lord Obama”

What nonsense.. of course its funny… they’re doing jsut the opposite, they’re destroying our own currency.

You are witnessing the US Govt destroying itself … Leftists have a death grip on America. All that stuff I talked about in my first comment… THEY HATE ALL OF IT.

So I read what my Founders said about worreid them about the future.. and they all worried about losing religion and that wealth would cause people to forget what had to be fought for.

Thomas Jefferson:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

James Madison
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

George Washington:
“The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!”

Daniel Webster
“There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from anothe quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing.”

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”

“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may ovenvhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”

“If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be; If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy, If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will; If the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end.”

Noah Webster:
“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed….No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

“When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty;

“If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for the selfish or local purposes;

“Corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded.

“If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”

“Corruption of morals is rapid enough in any country without a bounty from government. And…the Chief Magistrate of the United States should be the last man to accelerate its progress.”

Thanks very much for sharing with us those valuable quotes you have collected. It’s a treasure of wisdom.

Wow, you sure can type!! I agree with our good friend Michael that perhaps you should consider writing a book to share with us your wisdom. But for now you may like to keep your next comment a touch shorter so that readers would not skip your comments and miss the many valuable insights you have.

I won’t make comments on American politics. But I have no doubt the US govt is trying to do its best under the current circumstances.

Vince P, one strength you have is your religious conviction, which no doubt has very positive effects on raising one’s moral standards. However I feel compelled to offer you an advice that you may not agree with and may not even welcome. But I do this because I regard you as a friend. And as a friend, I should not hesitate to express views that may not be entirely compatible with yours. As I mentioned before, I believe religion is good for mankind in the sense that it helps to guide our actions and behaviour. And I am happy to see that you, like myself, have high moral standards. But if we start to view religion beyond simply as a guide for our very own actions and behaviour, and view the world through religion, it would open itself for possible abuse, and can become potentially very dangerous.

Having said that, I should also say that I have no right, and am not qualified to give you any advice on religious matters. You are an intelligent person. You know what is right. For me, I should leave that topic and stick to my China topics.

I think you have offered a sound retort to the noisy but uneducated cries for China to adopt (USA or UK style) democracy that crop up in the mainstream ‘western media’.

I think you’re being a little hard on the China though, from what I gather Chinese are by and large patriotic, educated and prepared to work for the greater good of their nation and benefit of their fellow countrymen. No?

Your prognosis for the future look of the Chinese government is insightful and, I hazard, probably accurate. The irony of it is that, as you allude to in your final sentence, China may well wake up one morning and find its self more democratic than those currently clamouring for it to happen.

Thanks again, I’ve appreciated your level headed ideas on the state of play from a (Im assuming) Chinese perspective.
Good luck to you.

-Vince P; I wouldn’t bother with the book, the internet is awash with grumpy American conservative ranting already.

Sorry for my long comments. I dont want to hijack your blog :) Regarding religion, I am not that religous as a person. I dont go to church, I go out drinking with my friends, etc…

The reason I bring it up though, is becasue American soceity and government was premised on a few religious assumptions. And the American way of thinking has been heavily influenced by the religous views of the people of that tiem. I am not neccessarily trying to say anything about the validity of the religion and not trying to say that other cultures should be Christians. A good example of this would be is for me to explain the Islamic basis for why the Yassir Arafat refused to make peace with Israel in 2000. I wouldn’t be endorsing Islam. And I certainly dont believe that Islam is true.

In your blog here you grapple with the question of what use is Democracy , is it universal? I wanted to detail for you what the circumstances were that led to America’s government and culture and notions of human rights. They all sprang from a particular strain of Christianity influenced at a specific time in history, the aftermath of the wars that followed the Reformation and the struggle to separate State power and religious coercion.

Another reason I gave all those quotes is because so few people are aware of them and I think those quotes are very important to what is going on today, in the US and the world. All the problems the US is facing are predicted in those quotes.

If the US should collapse. and I think we are.. those quotes contain the causes. Uh oh.. i’m writing a lot again.. it’s way too easy.

And yes, I am Chinese (originally from HK). It is interesting that not so long ago, my views used to be considered extreme and rebelious in HK, and not exactly representative amongst mainland Chinese either. In the last 10 to 20 years, things have changed. My same views are now considered representative in mainland China, and starting to have some support in HK and the West. How fast the world has changed!

——————————–

As for the current situation in China, your comments would be correct for the cities. However, the education level outside cities, although high compared to other developing nations, are still very low compared to wealthy 1st world countries. Since most people still live outside cities, the average education level in China is not high. That is the reason I would not support a full democratic system in China.

I am basically in full agreement with your essays. Many 6.4 students back in 1989 often talked how frequently they listened to VOA leading up to 6.4. They are now basically unanimous in their view about the mainstream media in the West vilifying China using “democracy”.

Your corporate example rings very close to home for me. In California, there is a budget crisis – simply because groups cannot rise above special interest. Nobody wants to chip in and help the state government survive! The U.S. is incredibly good at borrowing (or stealing) from its future generation – because there is no lobby for the youth.

I am a bit bummed too that you won’t be keeping up with this site. However, I recommend the following:

1. Continue to update your essays – they are truly timeless. Blogs tend to lead us into thinking things get “stale” because the timestamp is “old”. You have to know this theme is going to last a long time:
a. Until China becomes rich and powerful enough when the Western media then feels silly “telling” China needs to do this and that.
b. Then they need to serve China to dampen those hawkish and arrogant Chinese at that time so they won’t be going around the world “telling” everybody else they need to do this or that.

2. Contribute your thoughts at key places, as you have.
In the U.S., WJS, NYT, NPR are few media outlets I think are credible with the U.S. population.

Anyways, you are much more eloquent at these debates. I’d love to link to your essays wherever I debate.

Very glad to hear from you. And thank you so much for the compliments.

By the way, your alias sounds very familiar. May I ask on which blogsite you found the link to this site?

( PS. Yes no problems. I am happy to send you an email on the email address you provided just to say hello )

—————————–

I totally agree with you that we need to prevent ultra-nationalism from spreading in China. In a way, I am already doing that. I am fighting the main source of Chinese ultra-nationalism. That main source is of course the “Western media”.

You may be very surprised to learn that my original loyalty was actually with Australia when I was a young kid. I still remember when I was 11 yrs old, I was already setting out codes of conduct and rules of the game for myself to ensure that I wil benefit this country (ie, Aus). If the media in this country can change the loyalty of a person such as myself that completely (ie, away from them), imagine what it does to the people who never had any loyalty to the West, and are perhaps also less calm and rational than myself.

While the Australian media in general have improved a lot since those days, the 2 government TV channels (ABC and SBS) have yet to make any significant changes. If you come and see what they say about us in their news and current affairs programs, you won’t believe your eyes. Perhaps someone has paid them to churn out Chinese ultra-nationalists.

( Even the American diplomat, Christopher Hill seemed slightly surprised when he apparently realized he was conned into an interview that turned out to be yet another anti-China propaganda )

western media speaking that you are so different to anothers and that you rest of the world and manipulated minorities just want harm you? western media caused destruction in japanese factories in china, beating of koreans by chinese students or anti-carrefour movement with beating one foreigner who looked like french?
or it is someone wants block your access to foreign information and hiding local information and tens of years keeps people angry with note “without our protection it’s your end, you must clearly see”? have a look at north korea for more visible extreme
when someone in au will say nonsense it has main influence to chinese people? you could believe directly my country media foreign news are often simplified not just in relation to chinese reality, if i’m ever writing any short comment i feel it’s simplified and often one word should cause misunderstanding
btw. in my country national party gets the most votes in areas where people haven’t real contact with people they like to hate

I think American media at CBSNBCABCPBSNPRCNNMSNBCCNBCNYTUSATLAT is horrible.. almost criminal . They are such a pack of lemmings that I dont know why there are so many of them.. all they seem to need is one since they all repeat each other. Fox is a little different thank goodness.. which is why it has higher cable ratings then all the other cable news channels combined.

Nearly every single newspaper in America has declining readership except for the Wall Street Journal and I think that is because of its editorial board, they’re conservatives.. about the only ones in the whole country.

American Leftists are so arrogant and self-centered that they’ll allow thier media businesses to fail rather than give voice to the other side. and it seems like most Americans dont’ want to buy their stuff.

“always assume that I am an ignorant ”
sorry, i do not think so, i just want to say it should have different reasons than you assume
the most of people do not have or do not care about more sources but are under influence of local style, isn’t it so?

Ok, no problems. But perhaps you should understand that I didn’t switch loyalty at the switch of a button.

——————————–

As for your question about media influence (regarding the fanning of ultra-nationalistic feelings), the answer is actually NO.

You have to differentiate between patriotism and ultra-nationalism.

Patriotism by itself is fine. And almost all countries promote it to a certain extent through their media and education systems. China of course is no exception.

But ultra-nationalism is usually NOT something governments would promote. This phenomenon happens when an individual or group perceives threat or humiliation from foreign forces. In China’s case, their media is state-controlled and heavily sanitized. Up until not so long ago, the whole world was supposed to be so beautiful, and the West was supposed to be so good, that if you were from Europe, everyone would love to be your friend. All this ultra-nationalistic fervor against the West was non-existent. The average person in China simply didn’t know what you were saying about them and their country. If anything, you should be thanking the Chinese government.

As I correctly predicted in 2006 that if China was forced to open its media to the world in 2008 (leading up to the olympics), the West would pay a price, and ultra-nationalism would spread like wild fire in China. As I mentioned in my previous post, not everyone is as calm and rational as I am. And certainly not everyone was loyal to the West to start off with.

If you don’t believe me, simply do a search of all blogs regarding China before say 2005, you will find that all accusations in those days were one way: that is, from the West and directed at China. Now do the same search for blogs since 2008, and you will see the internet is chock-full of Chinese nationalists and ultra-nationalists. Sites like anti-cnn.com and other sites with similar messages have popped up from Chinese bloggers everywhere.

Ultra-nationalism is NOT because of the Chinese government. If the government wanted to fan this fire, they could have done that very easily by simply openning up their media before 2008. It is a response by the average person to the Western media. And believe me, unfortunately for everyone, this is only the start.

surely you’re right with many observations
but if 30 years ago west was accusing system in my country nearly no one here took it personaly, there was always difference between we (people) and they (party, goverment)
[anyway also in china was and is present view about ‘that communists’, funny was such mention from (basic) party members]
if you want take various comments personaly why become just ultra-nationalist and not f.e. also ultra-ecologist?
i found (for me stong) nationalism base in china also before 2006 in relation to ‘small japanese’ and ‘wester powers’ centuries waiting goverment fail
personaly i expect blogs in older times were more censored and allowed public discussion was about different cases, if i remember well first blogs here were more about personal feelings different to politics
i’m afraid during olympics time chinese discussed more about ‘in last moment they want to thief our olympics’ than about background for related cases because of chinese media taboo in this area so it was easy keep them angry without goverment open support

One more point, China and Japan (and Korea) shared a competitive relationships over centuries, way before Communism ever exsisted…

It is within those countries culture to be nationalistic about themselves and looks down upon the other two…I have to give kudos to CNN for pointing out China’s hate for Japan is not normal…while not mentioning that South Korea’s hate for Japan is even worse.

Chan/Huaren, I hadn’t looked at it from that angle before, that western criticism of the CCP (I find media coverage of Chinese people and society is largely positive) gives ammunition to the ultra-nationalist element of Chinese society. It makes sense when I think about it.

Is it really true that ultra-nationalism is as recent a phenomenon, a few books that I have read written by Chinese which mention propaganda used by the CCP in the 50’s and 60’s aimed at demonizing ‘the (capitalist) west’ and fostering xenophobia. Perhaps people of this era are pulling strings behind the recent upsurge in nationalist sentiment?

Another point that I would be interested in hearing your views on, it is not directly related to China’s approach democracy but perhaps is part of the cause of the conflict addressed in this blog; that is the disjoint I see in the perceived role of media in the west and China. In the west the media expected to question the government at every turn and heap on criticism when it sees failure.
This approach is applied to coverage of all governments; the CCP gets of pretty lightly compared to some regimes (for good reason). And because it is minimum expectation of the media, the general population of western countries don’t put a lot of weight on such reports, they are simply reassured their government isn’t the only one that has problems and think little more of it.
To many westerns the magnitude of the response from Chinese sources to criticism of the CCP seems far in excess of what it merits, whereas western politicians would tend to shrug off such slander.

But perhaps the media in China is following a similar to that of the government, lots of small grassroots media (like this cool blog!) at the bottom and a gradual loosening of the reigns at the top to meet somewhere in the middle, possibly freer and probably more intelligent than the current western media beast.

The relationship between China and Japan has never been very stable due to recent past history. But you may be surprised to learn that the negative sentiment against Japanese wasn’t actually that strong at all amongst the younger generation until a few years ago. And this is the generation that we now associate with much of the recent ultra-nationalistic upsurge. The current strong sentiment against Japanese was actually triggered by very recent specific events that were seen to be provocative. The 1st I can think of traces back to a hotel incident back in 2003.

(3) RE : “… and ‘wester powers’ …”

No, I don’t think there was any widespread ultra-nationalistic sentiment against Europeans in those days. Westerners had always been very popular in China. In fact, Westerners are still quite popular in China. Do you have any specific examples you can give?

(4) RE : “personaly i expect ….. without goverment open support”

I am not sure if I understand your comment correctly. If you mean the Chinese govt did not show the other side of the story, you need to understand that most of the people who participated in those marches in support of the Chinese govt were overseas Chinese living outside of China. They ALL had FULL access to both sides of the story.

2.
ecologist
hearing strong criticism to chinese governance you changed feeling and now you support chinese goverment
do not know if in au directly but here before olympics was nearly panic about polution in beijing – did you feel you have to start protect environment in china or something similar?
or your feelings are connected just to governance related news?
i can agree with mussel boy here is generaly positive (can say romantic) relation to chinese people but not to present goverment
anyway one more case to your list:
the worse description of chinese situation i ever heard here was speaking about falun gong where according to report about 100 000 of their members are out of control, harvesting prisioners organs in labor camps and even police afraids have conflict with this influent organization
will this make someone in china more nationalist?
3.
in china i heard about bad westeners thiefing chinese treasures in latest centuries
in personal contact was quickly added: of course not you
btw. also japanese are treated like clever in china
4.
i was more speaking about people demonstrating in china because of rumours

No, Real Name. It is not just criticisms of the Chinese govt. Please see my response to Mussel Boy below. It is easy for you to reject our defence of ourselves because you believe your media. But if it was the other way around, I am sure you would have done exactly the same thing.

(2) RE : ” … falun gong … ”

I prefer not to go into that discussion here. But if you want to believe the claims by the falungong group, you are free to do so. All I would say is, if you were neutral, and if you were willing to analyse things even just a little before you form opinions, you would find many of their claims incredibly naiive. A lot of the claims don’t even make sense.

(3) RE : ” … bad westeners thiefing chinese treasures … ”

Ok, your point is valid, but only for French (not all Europeans), and also only recently (since 2008). In other words, you example although valid, does not disprove my original point that there was no widespread ultra-nationalistic sentiment against Europeans BEFORE the opening up of the media.

(4) RE : ” … speaking about people demonstrating in china … ”

I see. The “background” you mentioned covers a whole range of topics. The Chinese media did discuss those issues. Of course as you would expect, it was presented in favour of their side of the story. But the exact same was true for the Western media.

You listen to your media and you believe them. In the same way, the Chinese listen to their media and they believe them. So in this case “media taboo” as you described it, is not the issue. The issue is BOTH sides are controlling their media for a purpose. The difference is the Chinese govt uses it to defend, while the West uses it to attack. One is for benign defensive purpose, while the other is for malicious propaganda attacks. It is the Western media’s obsession with spreading hatred that led to those marches by the Chinese.

Perhaps I should live where you are living my friend. Unfortunately the media in Australia isn’t quite like that. But I should reiterate that they have improved a lot in the last few years. Perhaps in a few years time, the 2 government channels I mentioned above may follow the same path.

(2) RE : “… are pulling strings behind the recent upsurge …”

During the cold war period, both sides were engaged in propaganda against the other side. But the difference between China and the West is that in China both the education system AND the media are state-controlled. If you are familiar with the Chinese media, you should notice that things are very heavily sanitized. Up until very recently, everything they say about the West (except of course for the things having direct conlict of interest) are ALL on the positive side. Although I have no personal experience of their education system, one can safely assume that it would hardly be different since they are from the same authorities. Such environment cannot possibly cultivate ultra-nationalistic views.

My view is that without access to the media or the education system, special interest groups such as those you mentioned have only the internet left to spread their xenophobic messages. But from what I can see, there wasn’t any significant amount of that except for those against the Japanese. And even those ones seem to have only started from around 2003 onwards.

On the other hand, you can clearly see the huge difference in terms of ultra-nationalistic sentiment upsurge from 2008 onwards when the Chinese authorities loosened their control of the media and the internet, and people were exposed to those crazy reports from the West. This change is clearly visible both on English and Chinese blogsites.

(3) RE : “… interested in hearing your views on …”

Perhaps I’ve been sitting for too long and can’t think properly. I suspect I may not be interpreting the question correctly. Let me come back tomorrow (Aus time) to answer your question.

The thing I noticed about western media on China is that it is designed to create problem for ordinary Chinese rather than helping them, as much as they would like to see themselves.

The first misstep of western media is that it always assumes all Chinese are brainwashed idiots, so that they can have a moral duty to brainwash “reverse facts” into all Chinese…talk about imitating the Communist propaganda machine and insulting the intelligence of 20% of the world population.

Then western media never dropped its McCarthyism rhetoric, so all Chinese are guilty by association with Communism. If a Chinese did something bad, he/she is evil be default because China is Red; If a Chinese did something good, then it’s not truth because Reds were never good, thus there got to be another non-Chinese that should take the credit for the helping the Red Chinese. This issue stopped being amusing when the bias reachs into Chinese histories that was way before Communism takes over…China cannot invent gunpower and soccer because it’s Red my ass.

And finally, the western media’s solution for all Chinese problems are boiled down to destory the government, then let god sorts out the rest. Well, I would love to destory the Communists and the government, but the resulting anarchy would cause destructions that will make Mao looks like a saint. And the western media tells Chinese that even through it could result in anarchy, Chinese would still be better off because they are free, without telling them that the “freedom package” also includes the part about freedom to kill, freedom to die and freedom to starve…

So what does western media really achieve for China? Brainwashing people just as bad as the Communist; Strip away all the dignity with its McCarthyism rhetoric that labels every Chinese as communist, and treat every Chinese achievement as west’s own; and promoting anarchy in China so that all Chinese can enjoy the total beneifits of freedom, from freedom to kill to freedom to starve. The reason ultra-nationalist exist is because the western media’s influence can be extremely damaging.

I stumbled on a comment you made on some site (probably through a link from Fools Mountain) and then clicked on your username. That’s how I ended up here.

Its a real bummer to hear that ABC and SBS are so bad. Really good point – “Western media” does indeed create Chinese ultra-nationalists – I’ve just never thought of it that way before.

———

Hi Mussel boy,

I think you have summarized a very important point – the difference in the perceived role of media.

My view is that those of European in origin in the last few hundred years have always been a struggle between the commoner and the Monarchy or the government (or whoever is in power). Thus, government with too much power is a no no.

In China’s case, it is because of a weak government for which the Chinese population were pillaged by foreigners in the last few hundred years. Therefore, for the current generations of Chinese, a strong government is a must to protect themselves and to nurture their progress.

Also, Hong Kong was taken by the British during the Opium War because China was too weak. Without a strong Chinese government, the Chinese don’t believe return of sovereignty could be possible.

So, for sure, I think the gap on perception of role of media is huge. One accepts strong government and the other the opposite.

——

Regarding Chan’s response – if you read comments by a lot of Chinese who lived in China – even students who participated in the 6.4 protest – their view of the West is very romantic and extremely positive in the late 80s.

1. I completely agree Chinese media’s view of the West is much much more friendlier.

2. All the 6.4 students who have “escaped” to the West during that period almost unanimously agree that Western media is duplicitous and they have deep distrust for them.

Back to Chan’s original point – Western media creating more ultra-nationalists:
1. In the last few years 300+million Chinese are on the Internet now.
– They get to see Western media raw for the first time.
– I remember CNN doctoring a photo to essentially lie about a scene in a riot in Lahsa.
2. Lots of controversies where I feel Western media were too heavy-handed in the last couple of years:
– Lahsa riot, Olympics (relay, gymnist age, etc)
3. 6.4 students in the West have a big influence on how their family/friends in China view the West

The Western Media is reckless, especially when they’re on a mission to “solve” some “global problem”

The most tragic example I can think of is the situation in Kosovo in the 1990s. Christiane Amanpour at CNN relentlessly reported that the Serbians were basically committing Genocide against Kosovar Albanians… and that the fighting was devoid of a much larger historical context that must be played out and resolved.

That woman pretty much on her and the strength of her message got the rest of the media to frame the story in line with her theory and before you know it, they compelled NATO to launch a war against Serbia, unjustly in my opinion.

A good example of how these reporters do not think and will instead rely upon stereotypes or Groupthink is the coverage of the people who stayed in New Orleans during the floods of the Katrina hurricane. Many black people took shelter in the Astrodome (or some -Dome stadium)..

They were reporting that the people inside there were basically on their own with no governmental authority present, that the people were murdering each other.. that gangs of rapists were abusing innocent women, and that after a few days that some of the people were resorting to cannibalism.. this was some of the most awful things I have heard been reported from anywhere on earth.

Then about a week later, it was declared that NONE of that happened in the -Dome. No murders, no rapes, no major crime, no people eating each other.

And there was no outrage at the media for their having totally misled people and being so sloppy to report such things without investigating them first to ensure they were true.

It’s frightening that these people have the influence they do.. they are completely inadequate for the responsibility.

I’m trying to think what impression I get from their coverage about China. I think i’m too skeptical of China stories in our media that my mind really can’t identify a major consistant flaw with thier reporting.

One thing I dont think the reporters appreciate is the responsiblity the Government of China has in administrating over one billion people in such a vast land mass , having only recently regained national soverignity after a long period of foreign domination and foreign oppression.

I am glad that China has restored its authortity and that it asserts itself. I do wish China wouldn’t cooperate with Islamic countires in the realm of nuclear weapons / missiles but i realize China is only doing what every country does and should do.

I jsut think that in the long term , China will be threatened by Jihadi Islam to the same extent that the West currently is and that China should work with us (whenever it is that we get sane leaders again) and against that ever growing threat

Yes, I totally agree with you that religious extremism is a threat to the world. And while I have full respect for the Islam religion, I think Islamic extremism is a very serious threat to the entire world including China.

This is certainly one common concern for both China and the US. But I don’t think we can beat them militarily. If the US can’t, no-one else can. We need workable solutions.

Coming back to point (3) in my previous response to your post (as promised) :

(1) RE : “… perceived role of media …”

First, I agree with huaren’s analysis on the difference between the cultures of the average person’s perception and expectations regarding the role of the media.

But also of course, the media in China is state-controlled. Some people are not happy with that, and some people are. I happen to think that not only is the control of the media necessary in China, but in fact, ironically the outside world is actually one of the biggest beneficiaries of this control. This is especially true for France and Japan.

It was precisely this control that prevented ultra-nationalistic sentiments against Japan a few years ago from escalating into a major crisis. If you’ve been following the news, you should have noticed how unimaginably abrupt the protests, etc ended. A closer look at the finer details of Japan’s recovery in the last few years shows how crucial that single event (resulting from the control of media) was to Japan.

The same is true for France. The protests/riots against Carrefour was terminated so abruptly, and the fire of fury of the masses was put out so surprisingly swiftly, it should show how important the control of media in China is to France. Clearly, in the 21st century, France can not afford to have China as an enermy. In my view, if China was a democracy, France would be in very serious trouble.

(2) RE : “… CCP gets off pretty lightly compared to some regimes …”

It may be the case in the last 1 year or so, but certainly wasn’t the case before. But I don’t know where you live. In Australia, it certainly wasn’t. China WAS one of the ultimate targets of attacks.

(3) RE : “… magnitude of the response from Chinese …”

There are 2 main reasons.

The 1st is that the target of attack is NOT limited to the Chinese govt. Up until a few years ago, almost everything Chinese was a legitimate target for attack. For example in my case, although I have long rejected the Western media, I did not start to actively fight the media until one of the major newspapers in this country published a FULL FRONT PAGE headline news portraying the Chinese as the aggressor of the Opium War, and implied that the punishment for us was just, and that we deserved it.

My 2nd point is a little bit hard to convince you if you don’t happen to already agree. To explain it properly, I will need to write another article, which is not what I plan to do. Perhaps you may like to just take my words for it for now. And that is, most of the attacks on the Chinese govt are either not true, or otherwise distorted or based on something deliberately taken out of context. In the few cases that are true, they often reflect double standards.

If this is what the media does, it becomes very hard for people like myself not to reject their criticisms.

I confess I’m usually only looking Aussie news on Aussie media so am not that familiar with the general tone of their commentary on China. I was in Sydney for six months in ’06, at that time the international headlines were dominated by Iraq, Afganistan and that war between Israel and Lebanon though I wasn’t particularly following Chinese coverage at that point.

Is it a coincidence that Australian media coverage of China has improved since mandarin speaking left leaning Rudd booted out hawkish conservative Howard? Maybe our governments have more of an influence on the angle the media takes than we’d like to think!? Perhaps that explains why I feel news I see here in NZ has been largely positive – until recently we had a pro globalization left wing government that were very chuffed with being the first developed country to secure a bilateral free trade agreement with the PRC, the new guys seem just as besotted. A side though.

(1) – Interesting you mention the CCP’s rapid response to anti-Japanese demonstrations, I was in Japan in ’04 for a couple of months and one of the headlines there at that time was berating the CCP for letting the protests continue as long as they did. By the way it was over yet more tinkering of the school history books by the Japanese ministry of education if I remember rightly which I think the Chinese are fully justified in protesting against – long and hard. I don’t doubt your claim, shutting down the protests early may well keep a lid on rising nationalistic fervour but it probably does little to placate the Japanese (not that they deserve any sympathy in this case!).

I am well aware there is a lot more history and background to the fairly regular and often exaggerated displays of outrage between the two countries than simply the relatively trivial issues we here about in the daily news.

(2) – I was alluding to the ribbing the media gives the governments of places like Zimbabwe, Burma and Fiji, all of which take up more column space/air time than criticism of China, even the UK with Gordon Brown and his MPs have been taking a media beating at the moment. However this may be explained partly by our current chummy relationship with China as mentioned above.

(3) – I’m in agreeance with both your points. But see below.

Huaren, I think the historical context you outline is crucial to understanding today’s situation. The western media are often exceedingly arrogant and hypocritical in covering of other cultures and I think is a hangover from the days these nations had the power to boss others around. China on the other hand is defensive of its success on the back of past humiliation. Perhaps China should shrug off shonky western criticism and report instead on the shortcomings of the western governments in distorted and disingenuous fashion as the like and see how long it takes them to start crying about it. But then perhaps China are above such childish games .

Ok, I can’t resist anymore. Vince P, dude, I think you have the wrong blog. This one, in case you hadn’t noticed, is mulling the ins and outs of China, democracy and media. I think you might be looking for ‘bitter conservatives anonymous’ or something ;-)

On the flip side of the coin – I feel the trend is nevertheless progressing more towards normalization. For example, China is now part of the WTO. AsiaPac is working towards free trade economic zone like the EU. U.S., EU, and China are aligned on quite a few issues.

Trade is increasing between China and Western countries. Cultural exchanges are taking place.

More and more people on all sides are vested in keeping a normal relationship going than ever before in history.

I remind myself some times that the Cold War wasn’t that long ago. So, a great deal of distrust are still out there.

Anyways, I encourage people like yourself to help understanding on both sides.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts to our friend Michael McCroskey, I will be setting up another page on this blogsite for some of the wise comments I happen to come across on other blogsites (possibly tomorrow or the day after). Since there might be more people such as yourself wishing to discuss about other topics, I’ve decided to add one more page to cater for that this weekend.

So please expect to see those changes to the site very soon. And your comment above will be moved to that new page. More than happy to answer your question above after the change.

No, not quite. The entire landscape of the Australian media coverage of China changed suddenly during early 2002. This mysterious sudden change seemed to have affected ALL TV channels simultaneously. There can be little doubt that it was not a natural change as part of an evolutionary process.

However, it is interesting that the 2 government channels (ABC and SBS) seemed to have chosen to not present rather than to include a balanced mix of positive and negative news items. So instead of presenting news that reflected the reality, they decided to stay away from all topics relating to China wherever possible for approximately the next 2 years. As a result, hardline anti-China programs such as Foreign Correspondent suddenly had no China topics for the entire next 2 years!!

The apparent 1st news item regarding China with very positive connotations appeared on SBS World News in 2006. The conflicting image contrast was so HUGE, I can’t imagine what was going through their loyal viewers’ minds. That may also explain your impression of the Australian media.(Added Jun 13: By the way, this was a once-off change of attitude on SBS. But generally speaking, there WAS some limited improvements on SBS since then, but nothing very significant)

(2) RE : ” … report instead on the shortcomings of the western governments in distorted and disingenuous fashion … ”

In fact, in my opinion, if China was a democracy, I think that is exactly what would have happened. As I mentioned before, the West is benefitting tremendously from the Chinese govt’s control of the media. Ironically, they are the ones who are complaining.